Appeal No. 2002-0421
Application No. 09/264,294
from a reading of exemplary claim 1, a copy of which appears in
the APPENDIX to the brief (Paper No. 9).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Grubb et al. Des. 291,122 Jul. 28, 1987
(Grubb)
Silverstein 5,344,355 Sep. 6, 1994
The following rejections are before us for review.2
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based upon a disclosure which lacks
descriptive support therefor.
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Grubb in view of Silverstein.
2 We have listed herein a lack of description rejection of
claim 5. It is most regrettable that the examiner has given the
impression that claim 5 is under rejection but has not explicitly
set forth the same. Because of the latter circumstance,
appellant has presented argument on the new matter issue
pertaining to an objection and to a rejection. In particular, we
note that appellant asserts that the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(1) should be withdrawn (main brief, page 9). This panel of
the Board can, appropriately, only address the matter of the
rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007